(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina tobacco report [serial]"

North Carolina 



Tobacco Report-1970-1971 



i i j 

* — I 

J 







The Bulletin 
of the 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

James A. Graham, Commissioner 
Number 203, May 1971 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Tobacco Industry Starts Decade With Economic Growth 4 

Foreign Matter In Tobacco A Costly Problem 7 

State Marketing Summary 1970-1971 12 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouse Sales Report for Season 1970-1971 16 

Summary of North Carolina Dealer and Warehouse Resales — 1970 18 

Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured Tobacco by States — 1970 18 

Flue-Cured Movement In And Out of North Carolina. 19 

Burley Tobacco Movement In And Out of North Carolina 19 

Flue-Cured Stabilization Receipts By Types and States . 20 

Burley Stabilization Receipts For North Carolina and 

Total U.S.— 1970-1971 20 

North Carolina Burley Tobacco Allotments — 1971 21 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments — 1971 22 

North Carolina Burley Crops 1928-1970 24 

North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops 1919-1970 25 

North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses And Operators 

By Belts and Markets— 1970 26 



For free distribution by the Tobacco Section, 

Markets Division, North Carolina Department 

of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C. 

Curtis F. Tarleton, Director, Division of Markets 

J. H. Cyrus, In Charge, Tobacco Marketing Section 

J. T. Bunn, Tobacco Marketing Specialist 



FOREWORD 



The twenty-second annual issue 
of the North Carolina Tobacco 
Report was prepared by J. H. 
Cyrus, in charge of the Tobacco 
Marketing Section, and J. T. Bunn, 
Marketing Specialist, Division of 
Markets, North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Agriculture. 

The North Carolina Tobacco 
Report was originated by Mr. 
Cyrus twenty-two years ago when 
he was employed by the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture as a Tobacco 
Marketing Specialist. During these 
years, he has continuously made 
improvements in this annual publi- 
cation. 

Today, it is one of the richest 
sources of information pertaining 
to market statistics, the current tobacco situation and a wealth of other 
data which is of interest throughout the tobacco industry. 

As in the past, credit is due several State and Federal agencies and other 
segments of the industry for their cooperation in making some of the data 
and information found in this publication available. For their contribution, 
recognition is given the Cooperative Crop Reporting Service, the Agri- 
cultural Stabilization Conservation Service, the Flue-Cured Tobacco 
Cooperative Stabilization Corporation and the U. S. Tobacco Division, 
Consumer and Marketing Service. 

The cover picture shows a new method of stacking hogsheads of pro- 
cessed tobacco used by Flue-Cured Stabilization Corporation in their 
Tobacco Growers Services, Inc. operation at Fuquay-Varina, N. C. This 
method of vertical stacking of hogsheads increases storage capacity 
approximately 30 percent compared to the old horizontal method. 





£&uJL< 



Commissioner of Agriculture 



Tobacco Industry Starts Decade With 
Economic Growth 



The year of 1970 was a year of gains for the tobacco industry despite 
the increased assaults upon its existence from hoards of anti-tobacco 
forces. However, there are signs that some of the efforts of anti-tobacco 
forces are being ignored because of their misleading and inaccurate slant. 

The current economic situation and development within the tobacco 
industry gives good reason for optimism concerning its growth during the 
decade ahead. Among these is the fact that all major cigarette manufac- 
turers showed a net gain in income during 1970 compared to the previous 
year. Also, total cigarette output reached an all-time record in 1970. Of 
major importance is the fact that after the ban on television and radio ad- 
vertising of cigarettes was imposed on January 2, 1971, cigarette sales 
showed an increase during January and February of 1 .5 percent compared 
to the same two months in 1970. 

It is common knowledge that some of the growth in the tobacco indus- 
try is the result of extensive diversification and expansion of operations 
within the organization of several of the cigarette manufacturers. How- 
ever, it must be recognized that this broader diversified base of operation 
actually adds strength to the companies' cigarette manufacturing divisions 
which in the long run gives more stability to the future of the tobacco 
industry. 

Cigarette Output Up 

The manufacturers of cigarettes made remarkable recovery during 
1970 from the slump experienced in 1969. With gains in both domestic and 
export sales, the 1970 total cigarette output reached a new record esti- 
mated at 583 billion, which was 4 percent above 1969. The previous record 
output of 579.6 billion cigarettes was established in 1968. It is estimated 
that total U. S. tax paid consumption of cigarettes in 1970 rose to 532 
billion. Shipments to U. S. forces overseas were unchanged at slightly 
more than 18 billion. Exports of cigarettes and shipments to U. S. posses- 
sions in 1 970 made a rebounding 8 percent increase over the previous year, 
bringing this total for 1 970 up to 33 billion cigarettes which is a record high. 

The upswing experienced by the tobacco industry in 1970 played a vital 
role in keeping the economy of the Tarheel State in a healthy condition. Of 
the total U. S. output of cigarettes, approximately 55 percent or about 320 
billion were manufactured in North Carolina. In terms of value of manu- 
factured products, the tobacco industry in North Carolina comes second 
only to the giant textile industry in this state. 



Record Farm Income 

In North Carolina flue-cured tobacco farmers received an all-time 
record high gross income from the sales of their 1970 crop, while gross 
returns to burley tobacco growers were third highest on record and the 
largest since 1962. 

Tarheel flue-cured growers received $562 million from the 1970 crop, 
breaking the previous record of $550 million established in 1964. North 
Carolina flue-cured growers sold 784 million pounds of their estimated 
production of 796 million pounds. This means that some 12 million pounds 
of the 1970 production was left on the farm unsold by growers who had 
sold their full quota plus 10 percent as provided in the acreage-poundage 
program. This, of course, will have the effect of reducing the effective 
quota for North Carolina in 1971 by about 10 percent when adjustments 
are made on individual farms for overmarketing during the 1970 season. 

North Carolina burley tobacco growers received $13 million from the 
sale of 18 million pounds this season. Burley growers are permitted to sell 
all of their production since they are under a straight acreage quota without 
any limits on poundage. This system with no restrictions on poundage has 
created an extremely large surplus problem for all burley growers. In fact, 
the three burley stabilization pools handling government loan tobacco 
now have a total inventory of nearly 600 million pounds, which is equal 
to a year's domestic and export supply under government loans. 

Legislation introduced in February 1971 to establish a straight pound- 
age quota for burley tobacco with lease and transfer provisions has been 
approved and was signed into law by the President on April 14. The 
Secretary of Agriculture proclaimed the 1971 national burley quota under 
the new law for 513 million pounds. This is approximately 7 percent less 
than the 1970 burley production in all states. 

Under the new law, burley growers will be permitted to lease and 
transfer up to 15,000 pounds of quota within a county. These leases can be 
made for periods up to five years and leases must be registered with the 
County ASCS Office. The May 4 referendum was carried by 96.6% of 
the growers voting. 

Outlook for 1971 

From the industry point of view based on current trends, cigarette out- 
put during the year ahead will probably continue to make slow gains in 
order to meet the increasing demand for (J. S. cigarettes in export markets 
and the gradual increase in domestic demand due mostly to growth in the 
smoking population. If the current trend in cigarette demand continues, 
U. S. total output in 1971 will probably edge ahead to break the record 
output of 583 billion cigarettes established in 1970. Thus, earnings of to- 
bacco companies will likely continue to show a consistent upward trend. 



Agriculturally — the effective flue-cured quotas for 1971 will be 
approximately 10 percent less than last year because of overmarketing 
during the 1970 season and the catching up of undermarketing from pre- 
vious years. This will reduce the North Carolina effective 1971 flue-cured 
quota to slightly more than 700 million pounds, and the national flue-cured 
quota will be down to approximately 1,080 million pounds which will be 
about 120 million pounds less than in 1970. Burley quotas will also be 
reduced in 1971 through the new law that places burley quotas on a 
poundage basis. 

Thus, there will be less cigarette tobacco offered through the flue-cured 
and burley auction systems in 1971. This should improve the position of 
organizations handling government loan tobacco in the year ahead. 

Prices received by growers will be steady to slightly higher on certain 
grades that may be in shorter supply. Based on the cost of production 
index, average support prices for both flue-cured and burley tobacco will 
be up about 4 percent in 1971. However, any increases in prices probably 
will not be enough to offset the expected decline in gross income that will 
result from the drop in production due to smaller effective quotas. Thus, 
gross income to growers will likely show a moderate decline from the 
record of 1970. 

Nevertheless, tobacco growers who concentrate on producing a good 
smoking quality of medium to thin body, with true color, and marketed 
in uniform lots free of foreign matter, will find a strong market awaiting 
them. The individual growers who follow these desired practices will 
likely realize a gross income in 1971 well in line with the previous year. 

In the final analysis, tobacco will continue to be the backbone of the 
Tarheel economy in 1971 and for many years to come. 



Foreign Matter In Tobacco 
A Costly Problem 

By J. H. CYRUS 

The decade of the sixties brought forth many changes and technologi- 
cal advances throughout all segments of the tobacco industry. Probably, 
one of the most significant changes was the complete shift from the market- 
ing of tied to untied flue-cured tobacco between the years of 1962 and 
1968. This change led the industry to the implementation of a presheeting 
system to improve the efficiency of handling loose leaf tobacco. 

While many buying companies did not look upon loose leaf sales as an 
advancement in marketing, it did serve a real purpose in helping farmers to 
overcome labor shortages and to cut their cost of handling tobacco in pre- 
paring it for market. However, it now appears, after three full seasons of 
untied presheeted sales, that a serious problem is developing due to the 
increasing volume of foreign matter that is showing up in presheeted loose 
leaf flue-cured tobacco. 

The following official data, shown in Table 1, taken from the records 
of one of the major tobacco buying companies, emphasizes the magnitude 
of the foreign matter problem in presheeted loose leaf tobacco. This data 
should be an eye-opener to the producers of a commodity that is already 
beset by a multiplicity of problems. 

Table 1. Volume and cost of foreign matter to one major buying 
company during 1969 and 1970 seasons 



Foreign Matter 


Volume 
1970 1969 


Cost to Company 
1970 1969 


First Picking Coming From 
Warehouse Floor (all large 
objects & foreign materials 
observed) 


66,000 lbs. 1 


60,000 lbs. 1 


$430,000? S393.000 2 


Second Picking of Strips 
(strings, grass, suckers, etc.) 


5,300 lbs. 


3.000 lbs. 


$ 1 ,000,000 3 $ 1 .000.000 3 


Sand 


5,994,031 lbs. 


5,104,885 lbs. 


$4,312,059 $3,695,936 



'Estimated from average weight of foreign material during first fit 
includes cost of picking labor and dollars paid for foreign mallei 
'Hourly wages paid workers arc the same regardless of volume of 



The data in Table 1 is the foreign matter experience of one major com- 
pany during the last two years. Based on the percentage of the total flue- 
cured crop purchased by this company, and assuming that the experience 
of this buying company is representative of the flue-cured industry, a pro- 



jection of this company's experience over a two year period gives an 
astounding picture of the volume of foreign matter marketed in the two 
most recent crops of flue-cured tobacco, and its cost to buying companies 
as a whole, as shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Projected volume and cost of foreign matter to all buying 
companies for 1969 and 1970 seasons. 1 

Volume Cost to Companies 

Foreign Matter 1970 1969 1970 1969 

First Picking Coming From 
Warehouse Floor (all large 
objects & foreign materials 

observed) 382,200 lbs. 353.000 lbs. $2,530,000 S2.312.000 

Second Picking of Strips 

(strings, grass, suckers, etc.) 31,200 lbs. 17,600 lbs. 55.880.000 $5.880,000 

Sand 35,259,000 lbs. 30,028.700 lbs. S25.35l.221 $21,740,779 



Based on the calculations in Table 2, foreign matter and the labor to re- 
move it from the 1970 crop of flue-cured tobacco cost the buying industry 
a total of around $33.5 million, compared to approximately $30 million in 
1969. The excessive amount of sand on tobacco is by far the most costly to 
buying companies; however, the tedious job of trying to pick all the strings 
from the strips, as shown in Figure I , is the biggest problem. 

The operation of removing foreign materials, of course, adds consider- 
ably to the processed price of U. S. flue-cured leaf, thus making it less 
competitive with the increasing volume of cheaper foreign grown flue- 
cured tobacco now entering both the domestic and world markets in 
quantity. 

The following quote from one of the major buying companies empha- 
sizes the growing concern in the industry of the foreign matter problem: 

"I would like to emphasize the critical situation the tobacco industry 
is in now concerning foreign matter. We had hoped when the 
farmer was able to sell his tobacco in loose leaves that he would 
show his appreciation by continuing to present it on the ware- 
house floor in a clean and orderly state. However, the reverse has 
been true, and the problem has grown increasingly more critical 
each year since the beginning of loose leaf sales." 

Prior to the day of loose leaf sales, when growers in the Carolinas and 
Virginia were required to tie their tobacco into hands or bundles, foreign 
matter in tobacco was not a significant problem. During those years prior 
to loose leaf sales, the handling of the leaves in the sorting and tying pro- 
cess shook most of the sand off the tobacco. The persons sorting and tying 
also removed most of the strings, grass, suckers, etc. while making the 
bundles. Then, the hanging and handling of the bundled tobacco on sticks 



8 



until it was packed on baskets at the sales floor eliminated much of the 
possibility of foreign matter and objects getting into a pile of tobacco, such 
as shown in Figure 2. According to buying companies, the volume of sand 
and other foreign matter in tied tobacco and the cost of picking tied tobac- 
co was only a fraction of that for untied tobacco. 

After three full seasons of selling untied tobacco, many growers, in- 
fluenced by company buying patterns, have become very lax in their 
practice of preparing tobacco for market. Too many growers have reached 
the conclusion that buying companies do not pay for extra efforts of clean- 
ing tobacco up for market, which under present conditions may be true, 
so they have developed the habit of rushing to get their tobacco into a sheet 
just as it comes from the curing barn, including many strings, grass, suck- 
ers, sand and all. Then, after all this rush, the tobacco most likely will have 
to sit for several days in the sheet before it can be marketed because of 
restrictive market schedules to regulate the flow of tobacco through market 
channels. 

The fact is that when most of the tobacco is sheeted straight from the 
barn without any efforts to clean it up, the buying companies have no 
opportunity to be selective in their purchases. They are forced to buy poor- 
ly prepared tobacco at the going competitive auction price in order to fill 
their needs for various grades of tobacco. If buying companies were 
offered more cleanly prepared, uniform grades of tobacco, they could be 
more selective and pay higher prices for uniform, well-handled grades of 
tobacco. 

As indicated in Table 2 and shown in the picture. Figure 2, the practice 
followed in preparing untied tobacco for market has left the offerings 
infiltrated with a mountainous volume of foreign matter that must be 
removed at great cost to the buying companies before the tobacco is usable 
in either domestic or export trade. 

Today, there is a major concern that U. S. flue-cured tobacco, which is 
recognized the world over for its flavor and aroma, will be priced out of 
many markets. It has even been suggested that the grower's price support, 
which is tied directly to his cost of production, be frozen. However, freez- 
ing of price supports would serve only to bring bankruptcy to many far- 
mers. 

The magic key that will unlock the doors to future world competition 
for U. S. flue-cured tobacco is for growers to present cleaner, more uni- 
form offerings at the marketplace. 

It is a known fact that growers can presheet loose leaf tobacco three or 
four times as fast as the market system can sell and process it. So, why 
should the grower not take a little more time and pride in preparing his 
tobacco for market so that he can present cleaner, more uniform offerings. 

Thus, the question concerning the future position of U. S. flue-cured 
leaf in the competitive domestic and world markets hinges on the willing- 



ness of U. S. growers to take the little extra time and effort necessary to 
make U. S. grades of flue-cured tobacco as clean and uniform as the same 
lower priced grades offered by their foreign competitors. 




Figure 1 . Picking lines where workers are doing the tedious job of picking strings and other 
small objects of foreign matter from strips. This operation costs the industry close to $6 
million annually. 



10 




Figure 2. Tobacco Marketing Specialists J. T. Bunn and J. H. Cyrus examine foreign 
matter of all description picked from flue-cured tobacco at processing plant. (A) Suckers. 
•grass, paper, feathers, etc. (B) Tobacco twine, and (C) Miscellaneous objects such as scrap 
metal, clothing, toys, bottles, bricks and other large items, some of which are seen in the 
background, that would do thousands of dollars damage to processing equipment. 



11 



State Marketing Summary 1970-1971 



In disposing of the 1970 flue-cured crop through the auction system, 
several undesirable situations developed. Weather conditions caused 
harvesting to be delayed in some areas and accelerated in other areas. 
Therefore, a large portion of the state's crop was ready for marketing 
simultaneously. 

As markets opened, farmers sheeted their tobacco and delivered it to 
warehouses in volumes larger than could be sold within allotted sales 
time. This led to the inconvenience and aggravation of farmers having to 
wait in long lines to unload their trucks. Many warehousemen prevented 
this problem by using a system of scheduling sales to growers. Ware- 
housemen and farmers were very well pleased with the results of system- 
atic scheduling because everyone received equal treatment. 

The volume of tobacco moving through the auction system caused 
several redrying facilities to become congested and buying companies 
could not remove their purchases from warehouse floors. Thus, a one 
week sales holiday was declared by the Industry-Wide Flue-Cured Mar- 
keting Committee to allow companies relief from their congested con- 
ditions. Heavy volumes of sales continued after the sales holidays in most 
markets until the crop was depleted. 

The flue-cured average prices showed a slight decline in 1970. Average 
price for North Carolina was $71.72 per hundred pounds, down $.41 per 
hundred pounds from the record set in 1969. Even though price support 
increased in 1970, large quantities of lo>v quality offerings apparently had 
a restraining effect on the average price. 

Volume of producer sales increased again this year to 724,258,807 
pounds, which is 84,262,729 pounds above the 1969 production. 

Burley growers had a satisfactory 1970-71 season with an increase in 
average price and a decrease in volume. The crop was considered very 
desirable and in strong demand. Thus, only 1.3 percent of producer sales 
went under government loan. Generally, thin to medium body and good 
color accounted for the acceptability of the crop by domestic and dealer 
companies. 

TYPE 13. Border Belt markets opened North Carolina's 1970 auction 
season on July 28. Sales continued through October 22, giving a total of 
51 sales days to the Border Belt area. The 1970 season was longer than 
normal due to a large late-maturing crop and a week of sales holidays. The 
additional sales time was necessary to give Border Belt farmers an oppor- 
tunity to sell most of their 1970 production. 

Adverse growing conditions caused some of the 1970 marketings to 



12 



be lower in quality than the previous crop. Large quantities of variegated 
and unripe tobaccos appeared in the offerings along with small propor- 
tions of smoking leaf and true color grades. 

Grade price averages increased $1.00 to $2.00 per hundred pounds on 
ripe lemon and orange grades, but variegated unripe and immature grade 
averages were down $1.00 to $4.00. Usually, an increase in average price 
reflected a similar increase in support price. The season average was down 
$1.03 from last year's record to $71.68 per hundred pounds. 

Stabilization receipts increased in volume and percentage for N. C. 
Type 13 in 1970. Receipts totaled 15,325,283 pounds which is equivalent 
to 1 1.2 percent of producer sales; whereas, in 1969 receipts were 8,400,756 
pounds or 7.1 percent of producer sales. 

Producer sales for the 1970 season were 137,255,588 pounds and sold 
for $98,379,258, which is the largest crop value since 1962. In comparison 
to 1969, volume was 1 18,033,542 pounds valued at $85,823,627. 

TYPE 12. Eastern Belt markets opened for another record-breaking 
season on August 18. Auctions continued over a period of 50 sales days 
with final sales in the belt occurring on November 8. A week of sales 
holidays caused the marketing season to be longer than the previous sea- 
son. 

Quality of the 1970 marketings was lower as compared to the 1969 
crop. Less smoking leaf, cutters and nondescript were sold. The propor- 
tion of variegated and unripe tobacco amounted to twice the percentage 
that existed in the 1969 offerings; however, it was still considered a good 
smoking crop. 

Price averages continued to increase in 1970 and set another seasonal 
record even though quality based on U. S. standard grades declined. The 
Eastern Belt was the only belt except the Georgia-Florida belt to establish 
a new record average in the flue-cured area. The 1970 Type 12 producer 
sales averaged $72.83 per hundred pounds, surpassing 1969 producer sales 
average by $.34 per hundred pounds. By grade, prices were up $1 .00-$3.00 
per hundred pounds on mature lemon and orange tobacco and prices de- 
clined $1 .00-$2.00 per hundred pounds on variegated and unripe tobacco. 

Stabilization received 43,250,895 pounds amounting to 12.1 percent 
of producer sales. In 1969 stabilization received 37,075,606 pounds, equal 
to 1 1.8 percent of producer sales. 

The 1970 producer sales totaled 358,241,279 pounds returning farmers 
$260,897,452. Producer sales in 1969 were 313,475,282 pounds and sold 
for $227,243, 152. The 1970 crop value was the largest since 1961. 

TYPE 1 IB. Middle Belt markets held opening sales on September 1. 
Markets remained in operation through November 19, except for a week 
of sales holidays, giving the Middle Belt a total of 44 sales days. After the 
first week of auctions, price trends declined and continued downward 
on some grades for the remainder of the season. 



13 



Quality of the Middle Belt crop was poorer as compared to the pre- 
vious season's sales. Much greater percentages of variegated, unripe and 
nondescript tobaccos appeared on the markets and lesser proportions of 
lemon and orange offerings were available. 

Grade price averages declined $1.00 to $4.00 per hundred pounds on 
variegated, unripe and nondescript grades. Increases of $1.00 to $2.00 per 
hundred pounds occurred on true colored ripe offerings. Middle Belt 
producer sales averaged $70.07 per hundred pounds which is $1.45 less 
than growers received in 1969. 

Stabilization receipts amounted to 19,715,332 pounds, 15.7 percent of 
producer sales in 1970, compared to 14,879,622 pounds or 13.3 percent of 
producer sales in 1969. 

Producer sales for the season were 125,465,425 pounds returning 
growers $87,914,387. In 1969, producers sold 111,647,113 pounds for 
$79,847,256. 

TYPE 1 1 A. Old Belt sales began September 1 in compliance with the 
limited early opening schedule, which allows nine Old Belt markets to 
open simultaneously with the Middle Belt. Five North Carolina Old 
Belt markets participated in the limited early opening. Other Old Belt 
markets opened September 23 after being delayed by a week of sales holi- 
days. Auction averages made a continuing downward trend after the first 
week of sales. Final auctions were held on December 2, giving the belt 
49 days of sale. 

Quality of the crop declined considerably as compared to the previous 
season's sales. Offerings contained larger percentages of nondescript, 
unripe and variegated tobaccos. A smaller quantity of the crop graded into 
true colored ripe grades. 

Price averages were down $2.00 to $4.00 per hundred pounds on 
immature, unripe and variegated grades. Increases of $1.00 to $2.00 
occurred for some fair to choice quality grades, but normally, advances 
were relative to similar increases in support price. Overall, producer sales 
averages declined $1.02 per hundred pounds from last year's record to a 
season average of $69.95 per hundred pounds. 

Stabilization received 11,982,818 pounds or 11.6 percent of producer 
sales compared to 7,877,7 15 pounds or 8.1 percent of producer sales in 1969. 

Producer sales in 1970 were 103,296,515 pounds returning farmers 
$72,259,761; whereas, producer sales in 1969 were 96,840,141 pounds 
and sold for $68,725,701. 

TYPE 31. Burley markets held opening sales November 23, which 
began a very fruitful market season for burley growers. North Carolina 
markets operated for 19 sales days during the 1970-71 season and closed 
on January 8, 1971. 

Quality of North Carolina burley improved considerably over the 
1969 offerings. Due to a favorable growing and curing season, a major 



14 



portion of the crop possessed desirable characteristics of medium to thin 
body and true color which proved to be in strong demand. 

Average prices increased for all grades marketed this season. Gains 
were usually $2.00 to $5.00 per hundred pounds with a few grades show- 
ing much larger increases. However, some of the top quality grades aver- 
aged only $1.00 above the support price. Average price for the entire 
season was $72.83 per hundred pounds, surpassing the 1969 average by 
$4.52 per hundred pounds. 

Government loan receipts were very nominal in North Carolina. 
Only 207,066 pounds or 1.3 percent of producer sales were placed under 
loan, compared to 1969 when 2,473,562 pounds or 14.1 percent of pro- 
ducer sales went under loan. 

Producer sales totaled 16,111,388 pounds returning farmers 
$1 1,734,599; whereas, 1969 producer sales were 17,594,430 pounds valued 
at $12,018,269. 



15 



lovcnn- 



■ — o — o © o o ( 



■ o> m r- on 



OnOOOM^OU>| 



I O — r 



■|^Tj-sOfN>flsDOTrTf O™ 



'^ 't (N (N <N >Ti 0\ f 
■ sO — f*~i r- \D rn ^fr ( 



O r*"l r*i O On m P- C 



Hi 





r^ 


9,895 
8,529 
7,793 

40,387 
6,334 

30,148 
9,751 

30,291 


-t' 



\OOM^in — ' o ( 



I sO fl I — ^Cf^i' 



^ © c» <» rs rn r- <n ^ in 

■ t*- (N — © — vOWMO 

■ os r- in os tj-.p- — in in 

■ Tf ^ O fN CMN r^ >o O 

>inrsio — os © os oo os 



-f 


— O 

in -t 


~ 


■rt so <J r\ 

^r so o r- 


-c r--' 


p-* 

3 


T 


... 


o> 


"1 OO 
O rn Tt 
•» — — 


r 


Tf Tfr Os OO 


OO P- 


sC 


2 


3s 


gl 




~ 












— ■ 





3 °- r 



I sD O P- O O t 



_ Os O Os ■ 



i os -^ r*i © <"•"■> i 



a^n^ooovoo- ol oo 

ffl p-i- o^^r- so 

qj rsi — — ! — ■ — " — m' rs — 

yp-p-p-r~-r-p-r-p-| r- 

Q 
PS 
O 



CQ^ossorNoo-^-ooos-^r^sOi sot 

p^osfN^roo — ooinosp-inosinin' 
Z rj d -' xr rsi <-*-j r^' — ' — ' ©' «n — ■ — « ! — ( 



619.999 
198.655 
559,554 
938,612 
117,030 
965.581 
499.273 
356,884 


« 


o>oor-p..eogoxON 


£ 



— o o 

tJ- x ri 

tox 


xo-ni- 

Tj- Os sC Os 
m rn ^ sO 


-r 


OO P-- 

■*C On 


s 


— so r*> rn os o 


P- oc 




£ 


o a-' 


00 


-T 


a 


ON 


-o 


X^OOXQO 


O- 3> 


O 


rsi 


— — 


— 


oo 


T 


— 


ON 


— Os 


O Os sC OO 



j — "' 



s a- 



UOtt.u.u.J|-> 



U u J! ■= ^ — 



- c — 5 « ° 

<OQ ' 



OG>2ct:c£w.t-£ i 



:^SS> 



16 



o o — o m — - 
no r- F- no r- i— r 



o — c 
so •© r 



"* "": "1 

3C 0-' •©' 



v-ir-oorn — ooTtf^-,00 — 


p 


6.195 
6.051 

25,951 
3,229 

15.138 

16,872 
8,202 

19.485 
6,998 
8,274 





-t 



sC — on no — r-j <^j tj- in %o 


sO 


CT 


O — ^oo — — no — sor- 


O 


£ 


sONor-mr-r-ooor-4 — 


O 


O 



> On no in ci O O r 



I rt sO — O I Tt 0« 



o^oi — 'sOr-sO 1 ©! — r 



Tt Tt — * 00 © -h (N <3 t*l P- 



) on m — o ( 






oovr-tn — o>6' 



iTfc-ic-iov — r» r- on c- ( 



. Tf © 



© -O 

r- in 

-* 


r? 


-r 3> 
© x 


On 


O pr 


c, 








ED TY 

140 
206 
1,151 
179 
750 
225 
192 
348 
115 
161 


^» 



■^■iTl'OTtTtsD^'J-fN 

' c-) on r- r- c~, r- — 00 on in 
00 c, ONONr-or-ocnin 
1 m o c-i on r-» ©' no* rsf o — ' 



CJ 00 o no ( 
•, -* n- -*j- • 

U on_ in ts o o\ 1 

— - -o c-4 r- so 1 — ■ 1 
j-inop — ' ■ 
fe « 

I 



— rJl « C 



>_ © ^t © 

1 — -^ ri 



O Tf y nO TT ( 



OnOnO — OOOn — C 



U no no r^ so r^ 

Q 
Q 



« On vO fN c~i r- OO " 

I od od r-i 00 © 00 c 
1 so so r~~ no r- no n 



Ofi >© ON On I Ci in 



) c-i — Ttor-^- — -t 
-TtinNOcioN — ^r-^f 
■ 00 in on_ 00 (N — — • r- f 
I'Or—rj-'Oinr^'O'n 






673 

474 
297 
494 
612 

461 
0110 

568 

797 


~ 


~ 


9.095 
8.498 
9.656 
5.399 
7.317 
7,636 
9.576 
6.513 
35.938 
3.664 




<t 



jH re_g re <u 

-5 j= "E ^ "o 



>5? 



<UQuuu-X_)6t^S 



;2 JJ^i^S^ 



<iS 



17 



Summary of N. C. Dealer and 
Warehouse Resales — 1970 



Belt 



Percentage 
Resales 



Border Belt 
Dealer 

Warehouse 

Eastern Belt 
Dealer 
Warehouse 

Middle Belt 
Dealer 
Warehouse 

Old Belt 
Dealer 

Warehouse 

Total Flue-Cured Resales 

Burley Belt 
Dealer 
Warehouse 

Total Burley Resales 



1,225,693 


810,048 


0.86 


4,650,077 


3,268,569 


3.25 


2,020,580 


1,320,064 


0.55 


6,979,337 


4,713,727 


1.90 


1,051,511 


705,440 


0.81 


3,471,051 


2,337,624 


2.67 


844,400 


545,855 


0.77 


4,876,732 


3,335,347 


4.47 


25,119,381 


17,036,674 


3.35 


479,702 


337,121 


2.69 


1,273,820 


908,575 


7.13 



1,753,522 1,245,696 



Producer And Gross Sales Of Flue-Cured 
Tobacco By States — 1970 



9.82 





Producer 


Sales 


Gross Sales 




Pounds 


Average 


Pounds 


Average 


N. C. 


724,258,807 


$71.72 


749,378,188 


$71.59 


Va. 


117,992,344 


70.48 


121,366,589 


70.35 


s. c. 


144,850,228 


71.88 


152,068,283 


71.80 


Ga. 


165,123,807 


74.10 


173,739,173 


74.04 


Fla. 


25,875,178 


75.81 


27,305,903 


75.69 


Total 


1,178,100,364 


$72.04 


1,223,858,136 


$71.93 



18 



Flue-Cured Movement In And Out 
Of North Carolina 



State 


N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State 
(Pounds) 
1970 1969 


Out of State Tobacco Sold in N. C. 

(Pounds) 

1970 1969 


Va. 


28,915,882 


31,390,252 


7,397,916 


6,830,018 


S. C. 


26,691,182 


20,687,131 


15,220,618 


11,647,553 


Ga. 


25,109,090 


19,454,739 


29,794 


51,620 


Fla. 


2,328,920 


971,078 


— 


9,032 


Ala. 


— 


— 


516 


1,038 



Total 83,045,074 72,503,200 22,648,844 18,539,261 



Burley Tobacco Movement In And Out 
Of North Carolina 



N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State 
(Pounds) 
1970 1969 



Out of State Tobacco Sold in N. C. 

(Pounds) 

1970 1969 



Tenn. 


3,596,804 


3,783,914 


463,392 


435,806 


Va. 


5,902 


7,550 


1,156,512 


1,057,528 


W. Va. 


— 


— 


28,462 


26,278 


Ga. 


— 


— 


38,368 


41,716 


S. C. 


— 


— 


1,644 


1,640 



Total 3,602,706 



3,791,464 



,688,378 



1,562,968 



19 



Flue-Cured Stabilization Receipts 
By Types And States — 1970 



State 


Type 


Producer 
Sales (lbs.) 


Stabilization 
Receipts (lbs.) 


Percentage 
Stab. Received 


Va. Total 


11A 


117,992,344 


17,630,998 


14.9 


N. C. 
N. C. 
N. C. 
N. C. 


11A 
1 IB 

12 
13 


103,296,515 

125,465,425 
358,241,279 
137,255,588 


11,982,818 
19,715,332 
43,250,895 
15,325,283 


11.6 
15.7 
12.1 
11.2 


N. C. Total 


11-13 


724,258,807 


90,274,328 


12.5 


S. C. Total 


13 


144,850,228 


13,301,820 


9.2 


Ga. Total 


14 


165,123,807 


19,029,758 


11.5 


Fla. Total 


14 


25,875,178 


3,502,855 


13.5 


Ga.-Fla. Total 


14 


190,998,985 


22,532,613 


11.8 


Total All Types 


1,178,100,364 


143,739,759 


12.2 



Burley Stabilization Receipts 
For N. C. And Total U. S. - 1970-71 



Producer Stabilization Percentage 

State Type Sales (lbs.) Receipts (lbs.) Stab. Received 

N. C. 31 16,111,388 207,066 \3 

U. S. Total 31 549,853,878 47,610,322 8.7 



20 



N. C. 


Burley Tobacco Allotments* 






1971 








Number 


Poundage 




County 


Farms** 


Allotment** 


Rank 


Alleghany 


552 


575,289 


9 


Ashe 


2,570 


2,395,152 


4 


Avery 


243 


263,131 


10 


Brunswick 


1 


171 


31 


Buncombe 


2,858 


2,933,096 


2 


Burke 


14 


7,753 


21 


Caldwell 


19 


11,037 


20 


Cherokee 


190 


133,737 


14 


Clay 


224 


162,115 


12 


Cleveland 


8 


2,516 


24 


Davidson 


2 


1,427 


27 


Gaston 


1 


712 


28 


Graham 


661 


608,724 


8 


Granville 


1 


258 


30 


Haywood 


1,834 


1,898,068 


5 


Henderson 


108 


79,428 


16 


Iredell 


3 


2,823 


23 


Jackson 


274 


209,498 


11 


McDowell 


70 


47,352 


17 


Macon 


238 


148,483 


13 


Madison 


2,730 


4,601,292 


1 


Mitchell 


929 


1,139,082 


7 


Polk 


5 


2,033 


26 


Rutherford 


52 


29,508 


19 


Stokes 


2 


540 


29 


Surry 


7 


2,488 


25 


Swain 


202 


130,790 


15 


Transylvania 


72 


47,292 


18 


Watauga 


1,658 


1,703,700 


6 


Wilkes 


6 


3,333 


22 


Yancey 


1,724 


2,418,950 


3 


STATE TOTAL 


17,258 


19,559,778 


1-31 


•Source: USDA Agricultural Slabilizi 


tion and Conservation Service. 






•'Preliminary figures for 1971 based or 


new burley poundage program enacted in 


to law in April 1971 





21 



*0 — -(NOvOffiX-O'i 









0\ O oo n Ov m l 



J — vO O f^ vO Tj - >C 1^1 *Cl — ■ ■ 
JO nO © On — On On *"*"". fN — i 

• r-» oooo r- oo © u-> r- rn ■ 



' *0 'O ^O »Oh 






* 

c 
E 



OvOff'0 , '0^fS , t— (NOv( 
O — nO On Cn] — '^ONOO^Tti 

— \oVI 6 -^' oo co * Tt r-' r-' < 

" ">0 On — OOTfoo Tt r--L 

n Tt rn m — \q in © c 

tT — ' r--' -<t vo CS — r 



i o no r 
) un on • 
! © © 



)OOntt — -st — rn — i/Ttr~- 

1 — fS O— >0<AI — nO © © © 
- (N rM nO Tj- — On OOnnOCnJ 

■ f*~. vO sD nO — nO (NOnOOOn 



r^vOTj' m — — f 



o 

u 

o 

H 

O) 

3 
U 

i» 

3 






Tt Tf On On ( 

-■)fNjr-o< 
i no o *» i 



■(NO\^or-- ^ r- © ^ r-- • 

3-i^0C-O\0OC 

■ 0"t — r-. tj- tj- ■ 



; — onoooon — n©> 



^(NMOO- 
D <0 O— nO O 

nO — «' r*{ 00 — >n 



-ioono — ooON^tO'~^ir--Tj-or-0'^ic 
- — od r-' Tf no " ' m' «■*") ©' so cs r*-j © 
___o — «nr-r*-,in oo oo r- */~i^t- 

1 — © rn \0 <■/"> On nO <"*1 ©r^i r-J^J 



On © Tf On 00 <n TT • 

Tt On r-J OJ nO © nO 



TtOvr- nO <"•") \0 rt * 

■t m © © rn m m r 



i © no no © r- © ^r ■ 



— v-> 


©©Tj-Tj-ir)TfrsTrNor-©r-Tf 




\0©Tj-o~irNioorN|r^i/^NO'^"y — 
(N^oo- OOINOO — r- On © 
soON^ONr^oo— rNir-y-t*^-) 


nO tt 


rg nri!>no © o> r- 



■ — — (S»- 



! 8|.» g 1.3 sj^lil^ S-8 1 s^ u .-s.-j| pills'! Kj 

<<<afflfflOOUUOUUUUOUUUUDQDQQuiu.u.OOOOD 



22 



sO^On^i 



■ Tj" — SO 



oo r- © r- — <n m 
•n oo (N O r rf on en 
en o* <n* in os ■* oo* 
in r- fN rs so o m 

sO ^" m ON ON — ■ Tt 



oorsiosoor-oov-iON( 
oo Tf ^t on r-; in on <o_ r^ in oo ( 

— ©' ©' ^t p- ^t no' no' r-i m* \Q i 

- © — r- < 



- — OO'tsO^C 



- o o — r- on t 



■ sO — o 
i oo . 
1 © "O. ~ 
i in o on' 

) O ON sO 



1-"OsO 



r- ^t — ■■* ^f no * 



ONr-©Tj-rN<;ooor^Tr 

rf M iTi CO o fM OO rs - r- 

O O — ©' ©' on rV i^' rs r-' ©' r-j' oo' 

moNONr--© — so n o> Tf so (^ rj 

rn — ' tr{ vo' — ' r-"* r-' — ' rs <n* <n — ' 



,Of. -OOI^sO't , t'*lvO( 



)soi — on o on — r 



*t — <NfN — r 



i © vo m ( 



i tj- so m oo on m on 






M r^ x o O fj 

ON ON — (N (N 

cm r-j m o r- 



Njor^ — '(Nr^iinTfxtnwdmfNisot _ 

n cxd tt \D r — in Tt t^ in <o in oo^ ^ rn o> rr *fr vo on c 

Nv-ir-ini — "n^ mxr~~a* vOvOOi — — T ^ rn oo' o' 

iwisuvN— vU— T|T^irii/-ir^(NO — sDh-INfS sO <"•-, sO ON in oo 

it — >ox x't — f V' o>' m' n* "st r-' Tt — T tj in ©' oo' r-' 



I o rs ps| rn c 

> so* on ©' rV t 






tOsOvor-. 

HTiONOC ~ 
— ' Tt — ' r- 



on © r- i 



5 © sO < 



jnsOsooM^ 

f f- m oo so* ct" ^" en" so 

~iTt(NTj-r-aN(NrN)in 

-sOsOOONfir<N.r*-]Tfr 



' 



sOsOfNu-i'tniNCOt 

•nsoOso'^OONrMi 
or-^ooNOoooNr^; 
ONr~-ONi/~)— <^"iOnsoc 



-; OV - CO sO «N 

■* — ■ © «n in* r-" 

a rs m r- oo oo 

~n\0 sOvD t 
■." ©' ri — ' no' © 



i — r*- r-» m o "3" i 



■-sOOOO-l 



O O nn -T — 



nonooO'OnncM 



•Oh'tC-CCi 



I 0C Tf I 



i so m m m on oo — — r 



— — m so 



ii — rondoooN' 



i o n sor-vjsDONr-ON 



; o on on p- ■o o ( 



IXOtsCM 



E 

o 

2 S c o 



st:Bo*>c-SN-8 8 III! INJbS^riyP 5 

«5 ° = s o o c 2 | g Ss i.2o o o | g o ^ 5 » « « «•-•■= "SH 

j2Z2zzzOOito.b.Ko:ii:o!a:i:K;j : >JJ^^>.' 



23 



North Carolina Burley Crops 
1928 — 1970* 







Yield Per 








Year 


No. Acres 


Acre 


Production 


Value 


Average 






(Pounds) 


(1,000 lbs.) 


(1,000 Dollars) 


Price 


1928 


3.600 


650 


2,340 


$ 690 


$29.50 


1929 


5,500 


730 


4,015 


863 


21.50 


1930 


7.200 


750 


5,400 


853 


15.80 


1931 


7,100 


710 


5,041 


464 


9.20 


1932 


6,500 


735 


4,778 


726 


15.20 


1933 


9,200 


785 


7,222 


715 


9.90 


1934 


5,500 


870 


4,785 


809 


17.50 


1935 


5,200 


925 


4.810 


1,025 


21.30 


1936 


6,000 


900 


5,400 


2,095 


38.80 


1937 


9,000 


975 


8,775 


1,787 


21.40 


1938 


8,600 


900 


7,740 


1,308 


16.90 


1939 


8,100 


1,070 


8,667 


1,447 


16.70 


1940 


6,500 


1,050 


6,825 


1,242 


18.20 


1941 


6,200 


1,075 


6,665 


2,093 


31.40 


1942 


6,600 


1,150 


7,590 


3,211 


42.30 


1943 


8,500 


1,225 


10,412 


5,102 


49.00 


1944 


1 2,000 


1,390 


16.680 


8,157 


48.90 


1945 


13,000 


1,500 


19.500 


7,568 


38.30 


1946 


9.800 


1,475 


14.455 


5,999 


41.50 


1947 


9.600 


1,560 


14,976 


6,335 


42.30 


1948 


10.300 


1,680 


17,304 


8,012 


46.30 


1949 


10,800 


1,440 


15,552 


6,750 


43.40 


1950 


10,500 


1,700 


17.850 


9,175 


51.40 


1951 


1 2,200 


1,750 


21,350 


11,572 


54.20 


1952 


1 2,000 


1,680 


20,160 


9,818 


48.70 


1953 


11,400 


1.800 


20.520 


11,019 


53.70 


1954 


1 2,700 


1,920 


24,384 


12,680 


52.00 


1955 


9,800 


1,900 


18,620 


10,651 


57.20 


1956 


9,400 


1,850 


17,390 


10,747 


61.80 


1957 


9,600 


1,975 


18,960 


11,073 


58.40 


1958 


9,300 


2,000 


18,600 


11,978 


64.40 


1959 


9,800 


2,060 


20.188 


1 1 ,426 


56.60 


I960 


9,500 


1,940 


18,430 


12.016 


65.20 


1961 


10,400 


2,090 


21.736 


14,346 


66.00 


1962 


11,000 


2,185 


24.035 


14.421 


60.00 


1963 


11,000 


2,285 


25,135 


13,573 


54.00 


1964 


9,700 


2,165 


21,000 


12.054 


57.40 


1965 


8,900 


2,030 


18,067 


12.159 


67.30 


1966 


7,900 


2,320 


18,328 


12,371 


67.50 


1967 


7,800 


2.010 


15,678 


11.037 


70.40 


1968 


7,900 


2,385 


18,842 


13.868 


73.60 


1969 


7,900 


2,570 


20,303 


13,928 


68.60 


1970'* 


7,400 


2.600 


19,240 


14,000 


72.80 



24 



North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops 
1919 — 1970* 







Yield Per 








Year 


No. Acres 


Acre 


Production 


Value 


Average 






(Pounds) 


(1,000 lbs.) 


(1,000 Dollars) 


Price 


1919 


521,000 


612 


319,276 


SI 57.340 


$49.30 


1920 


62 1 .900 


681 


423,703 


88.271 


20.80 


1921 


414,900 


594 


246,540 


60,402 


24.50 


1922 


444.000 


611 


271.170 


74,572 


27.50 


1923 


544.300 


728 


396,354 


81.998 


20.70 


1924 


473,500 


585 


276,819 


62,597 


22.60 


1925 


536,200 


696 


373.352 


83,756 


22.40 


1926 


546,700 


692 


378,274 


96,762 


25.60 


1927 


639.600 


755 


482,982 


100.414 


20.80 


1928 


712,400 


692 


493.132 


93,450 


19.00 


1929 


729,300 


665 


484,630 


89,470 


18.50 


1930 


768.000 


757 


581,200 


74,733 


12.90 


1931 


688,500 


692 


476,382 


42,024 


8.80 


1932 


462.500 


624 


288,750 


34,949 


12.10 


1933 


667,800 


794 


530,133 


85,530 


16.10 


1934 


486,500 


847 


412,055 


117,999 


28.60 


1935 


612,500 


635 


572,625 


116,418 


20.30 


1936 


591,000 


765 


451,975 


101,856 


22.50 


1937 


675,000 


883 


595,815 


143.058 


24.00 


1938 


603,500 


844 


509,470 


115,428 


22.70 


1939 


843,000 


964 


812,540 


123,893 


15.20 


1940 


498,000 


1,038 


516,835 


85,792 


16.60 


1941 


488,000 


928 


452,825 


132.291 


29.20 


1942 


539.000 


1,052 


566,810 


221.538 


39.10 


1943 


580.000 


935 


542,200 


219.074 


40.40 


1944 


684,000 


1,077 


736.990 


317.628 


43.10 


1945 


722,000 


1.100 


794.310 


349,148 


44.00 


1946 


802,000 


1,138 


912.970 


45 1 ,639 


49.50 


1947 


783,000 


1,139 


892,205 


374,513 


42.00 


1948 


594,000 


1,239 


739,380 


368,040 


49.80 


1949 


621,000 


1,178 


731,530 


352,508 


48.20 


1950 


640,000 


1,441 


858,140 


477,508 


55.60 


1951 


735,000 


1.331 


978,375 


523,358 


53.50 


1952 


735.000 


1,222 


898,090 


448,582 


49.90 


1953 


674,000 


1,235 


832,305 


447.076 


53.70 


1954 


686,000 


1,204 


889,490 


483.003 


54.30 


1955 


653,000 


1,499 


978,775 


520.845 


53.20 


1956 


579,000 


1,661 


961,495 


496.324 


51.60 


1957 


443,000 


1,469 


650,780 


358.442 


55.10 


1958 


429,000 


1,718 


736,855 


427,307 


58.00 


1959 


458,500 


1,533 


702,942 


407.055 


57.90 


1960 


457,500 


1,836 


839,870 


512.731 


61.10 


1961 


463,000 


1.797 


832,215 


541,468 


65.10 


1962 


483,000 


1,890 


912,810 


549.594 


60.20 


1963 


460.500 


1.999 


920,660 


535,622 


58.18 


1964 


416.000 


2,282 


949,450 


549,875 


57.90 


1965 


375.000 


1,840 


690,050 


442.796 


64.20 


1966 


409,500 


1,859 


761.360 


506.605 


66.50 


1967 


395,400 


2.071 


818,997 


523.809 


64.00 


1968 


350,500 


1.850 


648.533 


430,613 


66.45 


1969 


378,500 


1,838 


695.665 


502.305 


72.20 


1970** 


382,500 


2,079 


795.363 


569,983 


71.72 



Y C and I 'SIM Crop Reporting So 
nun lor 197(1 
Since 1965. production is pounds prod 



25 



North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses And Operators 
By Belts And Markets — 1970 

BORDER BELT 

Chadbourn (one set buyers) 

Jimmy Green Whse. - Jimmy Green 
Producers - Jack W. Garrett, Crickett Garrett 

Clarkton (one set buyers) 

New Clarkton — Maynard Talley, Cecil Hartley 
Bright Leaf Jimmy Green 

Fair Bluff (one set buyers) 

Powell - B. A. Powell 

Planters — Randolph Currin. B. W. Currin, C. W. Shaw, S. Lawrence, H. E. and H. 
B. Dunn 

Fairmont (four sets buyers) 

Big Brick-Carolina — A. W. McDaniel, A. D. Lewis, Jr. 

Liberty-Twin States — Clarence Joyce, Lynn Floyd, Hoke Smith, Jr. 

Holliday-Frye — E. H. Frye, J. W. and J. M. Holliday 

Square Deal — W. G. Bassett, C. L. Smith 

Planters-Mitchell — B. W. Garrett, Harry Mitchell, Morris Daniel 

Fayetteville (one set buyers) 

Big Farmers — P. L. Campbell, A. R. Talley, Sr., A. R. Talley, Jr., Dan Talley 
Planters — J. C. Adams, Billy Adams 

Lumberton (three sets buyers) 

Carolina - J. L. Townsend, Sr. & Jr., J. E. Johnson, Jr., Sam Dunn 
Smith-Dixie — Cecil Thompson, Leslie Hall, Jack Pait 
Hedgpeth — E. H. Collins, Albert Thornton, Jr. 
Liberty — H. D. Goode, R. H. Livermore, Frank White 
Star — D. T. Stephenson, Hogan Teater, Russell Teater 
Cooperative — C. E. McLaurin, Mgr. 

Tabor City (one set buyers) 

R. C. Coleman Co. - R. C. Coleman, Sr.. Mrs. Harriet Sikes 
Planters — Don Watson, Mgr. 

Whiteville (three sets buyers) 

Gray & Neal - A. Dial Gray, J. L. Neal 
Crutchfield - G. D. & R. W. Crutchfield 
Lea's Big Dixie — William Townes Lea, Louie Love 
Liberty J. W. Hooks, 1. A. Barefoot & Sons 
Moore's C. C. Mason. C. F. Jeffcoat 
Nelson's John H. Nelson. Jim Smith 
Planters - A. O. King, Jr., Cliff Stephens 
Smith's Ernest Smith. Joe T. Smith 



26 



EASTERN BELT 
Ahoskie (one set buyers) 

Basnight No. 1-2-3 L. L. Wilkens, Sr. & Jr., H. G. Veazey. H. Jenkins 
Farmers I & 2 W. M. Odoms. S. S. Pierce, J. L. Morris 

Clinton (one set buyers) 

Carolina L. D. Herring. C. J. Strickland. N. L. Daughtry, L. D. Starling. J. P. Gore. 

Mrs. M. L. Bethune 
Ross Clarence Kirven, Jr.. W. K. Beech 

Dunn (one set buyers) 

Lee's Planters, Inc. Leland Lee 

Big Four Whse. - Tom Smothers, Jack Calhoun, Norman Hardee 

Farmville (two sets buyers 

Bell's R. A. Bell & Bros. 

Fountain & Monk No. 1 - John F. Fountain, J. I. Oakley, Robert Pierce 
Planters & Prewitts - Chester Worthington, W. O. NewelL B. S. Correll 
Lee's Gordon Lee 

Goldsboro (one set buyers) 

Carolina Guy Best, D. M. Price 

Farmers - Robert Lynch 

Big Brick - J. R. Musgrave, Sr., J. R. Musgrave, Jr.. Helen Musgrave 

Victory Richard Gray 

Greenville (five sets buyers) 

Cannon's - W. T. Cannon, Carlton Dail 

Farmers W. Arthur Tripp, T. P. Thompson. Harold Watson. Jack Warren 

Star-Planters - B. B. Sugg, Harding Sugg 

Keel J. A. & J. B. Worthington, Fenner Allen 

New Independent — T. W. Pruitt. W. A. Pruitt. James Belcher 

Raynor-Forbes-Clark — Noah Raynor, A. A. Forbes. Billy Clark 

New Carolina — Laddie Avery, Larry Hudson 

Kinston (four sets buyers) 

Farmers John Jenkins, Sr. & Jr. 

Knott's I & 2 - Graham Knott, Billy Brewer 

New Dixie - John Jenkins, Sr. & Jr.. Lee Jenkins 

New Central — W. I. Herring, Bill King 

H & H - Dempsey Hodges. Virgil Harper 

Banner John Heath, Kirby Loftin 

Brooks - Roger & Fred Brooks 

Central W. I. Herring, Bill King 

Robersonville (one set buyers) 

Grays-Red Front-Central - J. H. Gray, Jack Sharp. James E. Gray 
Planters H. T. JJighsmith. E. G. Anderson, Frank Everett, H. H. Worsley 

Rocky Mount (four sets buyers) 

Cobb & Carlton W. E. Cobb, Jr. & J. C. Carlton 
Mangum. Inc. W. H. Phipps. General Mgr. 
Planters S. S. Edmondson 
Smith's James D. Smith. Sr. & Jr. 
Works - R. J. Works, Jr., A. B. Raynor 
Peoples Guy Barnes. Gene Simmons, James Walker 
Farmers J. Holt Evans. Joe W. Coleman 
Fenners J. B. Fenner 



27 



Smithfield (two sets buyers) 

Farmers N. Leo Daughtry. Bill Kennedy 

Planters-Riverside - Joe Stephenson, Jerrv Stephenson. Gilbert Stephenson 

Gold Leal R. A. Pearce. Sr. & Jr. 

Wallace - Lawrence. Bobby & Larry Wallace 

Tarboro (one set buyers) 

Clark 1 & 2 J. F. Wilson. Jr.. George L. Proctor 

Farmers 1 - Walter Walker. W. G. Maples, Fred L. Walston 

Victory W. V. Leggett. C. H. Leggett 

Wallace (one set buyers) 

Blanchard & Farrior - O. C. Blanchard, W. H. Farrior, R. H. Lanier 

Hussey Joe Bryant 

Sheffield's — John Sheffield. Homer M. Boney. Jr. 

Farmers — H. G. Perry 

Washington (one set buyers) 

Sermon's - W. J. Sermon, Harry L. Roberts 
Talley — W. G. Talley, T. J. Talley 
Hassell — Malcolm P. Hassell 

Wendell (one set buyers) 

Liberty-Farmers — H. H. & Berdon Eddins 
Northside - Graham Dean, Bill Sanders 
Banner - C. P. (Pete) Southerland 

Williamston (one set buyers) 

Rogers Urbin Rogers, Leland Barnhill, Russell Rogers 
New Dixie C. Fisher Harris, J. Elmo Lilley 

Wilson (five sets buyers) 

Big Dixie - W. C. Thompson, Buck Edmondson 

Wainwright — George L. Wainwright. Sr. & Jr. 

Centre Brick - S. M. Cozart. W. H. Cozart HI, F. M. Eagles 

Growers Cooperative — Clifford Aycock. Mgr. 

Bob's & Clark's - C. R. Clark. Jesse Harris 

Liberty C. B. Renfro 

Nichols & Scott - A. B. Nichols, Clay Scott 

Smith-Planters — S. Grady Deans, John F. Deans 

Windsor (one set buyers) 

Planters I & 2 - C. B. & B. U. Griffin, Dave Newsome 
Farmers Bill Davis. Norman Swain 



28 



MIDDLE BELT 

Aberdeen (one set buyers) 

New Aberdeen Cecil Moore. J. T. Worthington. Bobby Oldham 

Planters W. Fentriss Phillips 

Hardee's Hugh T. Hardee 
Carthage (one set buyers) 

McConnells E. C. Layton. Earl J. Ennis 

Victory E. C. Layton. Earl J. Ennis 

New Farmers Bill Carter, Sr. & Jr. 
Durham (three sets buyers) 

Liberty - Walker Stone. Jr.. Walker Stone. Sr., K. O. Bishop 

Roycroft-Mangum - J. K. Rovcroft. Randolph Currin 

Star-Brick I & 2 - W. W. Co/art. W. L. Currin, A. L. Carver 

Farmers-Planters J. M. Talley, Bob Dale, Sam Mangum 

Ellerbe (one set buyers) 

Farmers - J. D. Perkins, Cecil Moore. Bobby Oldham. Jimmy Tilley 
Richmond County - Ashton Richardson. R. P. Brim, Jr. 

Fuquay-Varina (two sets buyers) 

New Deal - Dan Talley, Dan Brisson 
Gold Leaf - J. W. Dale, Waverly Aiken 
Carolina — E. E. Clayton. Larry C. Knott 
Roberts - Joe Roberts 
Henderson (two sets buyers) 

Moore's Big Banner - A. H. Moore, C. E. Jeffcoat. B. W. Young 

Carolina J. S. Royster, I. J. Jackson 

Farmers — W. J. Alston, Jr. 

High Price - C. B. Turner, R. E. Tanner. R. E. Fleming, S. P. Fleming, J. K. Parks. M. 

D. Abbott 
Liberty 1 & 2 - George T. Robertson, S. E. Southerland, John Wilson 
Ellington — F. H. Ellington, John Ellington 
Alston's - W. J. Alston. Jr. 
Big Dollar -ML. High, James H. O'Brien 

Louisburg (one set buyers) 

Big Franklin - S. T. & H. B. Cottrell 
Ford's Charlie Ford 

Star - James Speed, Gus McGhee, Clemmon Pearce 
Oxford (two sets buyers) 

Banner-Mitchell — David Mitchell 

Fleming - F. O. Finch, D. T. Currin. Jr. 

Johnson-High Price — C. R. Watkins, C. R. Watkins. Jr., T. J. Currin. J. C. Hamrne 

Owen I & 2 - W. L. Gregory. G. P. Royster. M. A. Goode. Sam W. Watkins. John 

S. Watkins. Jr., C. B. WMkins 
Yeargin-Granville — R. W. Crews, W. W. Yeargin 

Sanford (one set buyers) 

Twin City - W. M. Carter. T. W. Mansfield. Jimmy Mansfield 
Morgan's - Jimmy Morgan 

Warrenton (one set buyers) 

Boyd's B. W. Currin. Jr. 

Centre - M. P. Carroll, E-. W. Radford. E. M. Moody 

Farmers E. G. Tarwater 

Thompson - C. E. Thompson. M. P. Edwards. Jr. 

Currin's I & 2 - C. W. Currin. D. G. Currin. Jr., David Tillotson 



29 



OLD BELT 

Burlington (one set buyers) 
Carolina H. L. Perkins 
Coble N. C. Newman, Joe Robertson 
Farmers Bill McCauley. Glenn McCray 

Greensboro (one set buyers) 

Greensboro Tob. Whse. Co. - R. C. Coleman, Jr.. Mgr. 
Guilford Tob. Whse. J. R. & J. E. Pell 

Madison (one set buyers) 

New Brick - S. F. Webster, Lloyd Webster 
Carolina S. F. Webster, Lee McCollum 
Sharpe & Smith Farmers — W. S. Smith, D. C. Hoilman 
Mebane (one set buyers) 

Farmers Jule Allen, Bill Allen 

Piedmont Billy Hopkins, Jimmy Hopkins 

Mt. Airy (one set buyers) 

New Farmers Tom Jones, O. L. Badgett, Boyd Cain. F. V. Dearmin, Jr. 
Dixie W. H. Brown. H. Y. Hodges, Fred E. Chilton 
Hunter's J. W., Hunter, W. R. Fowler 
Reidsville (one set buyers) 

New Farmers - G. E. Smith. Steve Smith, P. D. McMichael, Phillip Carter 
Leader-Smothers — A. P. Sands, Tom Kimbro, T. B. Smothers, T. Garland Smothers 

Roxboro (one set buyers) 

Farmers Lindsay Wagstaff, R. A. Hester, Larry C. Hester 

Hyco F. J. Hester. Jr. 

Foacre - H. W. Winstead, Jr., Pres. 

Planters Whse. - T. O. Pass, Sr. & Jr. 

Pioneer Elmo Mitchell, Roy Carver 
Stoneville (one set buyers) 

Joyce's - O. P. Joyce, W. R. Joyce 

Farmers-Piedmont — R. N. Linville, Clarence Peeples. W. Q. Chilton, Robert & Gar- 
land Rakestraw 
Winston-Salem (four sets buyers) 

Carolina-Star — R. W. Newsome, W. B. Simpson. H. M. Bouldin 

Growers - Joe Pell, C. R. Harris, R. J. Harris, P. R. Floyd 

Pepper's - C. F. Hutchins, Joe Cook, Hdfner Dearmin 

Taylor - L. E. Pope 

Big Winston — Taylor Carter & Jack Carter 

Cook's - B. E. Cook, Claude Strickland, Jr., P. Thomas, Doug Cook 

Planters Paul Draughn. Roger L. Nichols, F. Smithdeal 
Yadkinville (one set buyers) 

Northwest N. C. Farmers Whse. — R. A. Owen, Sherman Todd 

Big Yadkin Tob. Whse., Inc. — E. H. Barnard, R. P. Riley. Ralph T. White, Chris Rosser 

Millers Tob. Whse. — J. A. Miller. J. A. Miller. Jr.. J. W. Flinchum 
BURLEY BELT 
Asheville (two sets buyers) 

Dixie-Burley - R. A. Owen 

Planters J. W. Stewart 

Walker Warehouse James E. Walker 

Day's Charlie Day 
Boone (one set buyers) 

Mountain Burley — Joe E. Coleman 

West Jefferson (one set buyers) 

I ri-State Burley Rex Taylor 
Farmers Burley Mrs. Tom Faulkner 



30 



STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 

James A. Graham, Commissioner 
Ex-Officio Chairman 

J. Atwell Alexander Stony Point 

Fred N. Colvard Jefferson 

Guy E. Fisher Pendleton 

Claude T. Hall Roxboro 

George P. Kittrell Corapeake 

Charles F. Phillips Thomasville 

J.H.Poole West End 

Henry Gray Shelton Speed 

James L. Sutherland Laurinburg 

David Townsend, Jr. Rowland 



31 



DOMESTIC TAX PAID CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION 
BY KINDS 1970 




Total Domestic Consumption 
532 Billion Cigarettes